Thanks so much, this is very illuminating. I hear your journey from literalism to understanding, and i try to follow that same path myself. Echoing a famous line from Asimov, I tell myself, ‘Literalism is the last resort of the incompetent translator’. It’s odd that we equate this with an “academic” style; who is it that decided academia should be driven by such a mechanistic approach? Is there really anyone who thinks this kind of translation is valuable except as a crib for students?
Good, I too try to translate everything as much as I can.
Preaching to the converted here!
Right, there are certain passages that presented with very high consistency in Indic texts, the jhana formula being one of them. But in most cases there is considerable room for variation. If we pre-digest the Chinese texts too much we lose the point in comparing versions at all.
I learned a little about the pitfalls of this when translating the Digha Nikaya. It seems that Walshe’s translation is largely based on Rhys Davids’. When Rhys Davids encountered a gnarly bit of Pali, it is sometimes reflected in a clumsy or obscure turn of phrase in English. Walshe then “tames” RD’s rendering, resulting in what sounds like a more fluent, even more plausible English phrasing; but if you compare it with the Pali, it is actually less accurate and often simply wrong.
I am a strong believer that there is no one true translation method; any translation both adds somethings and omits something. ideally there would be multiple translations from different perspectives, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. But the most important thing is that a translation is guided by a strong and coherent philosophy. What I am saying is, sadhu! 